The court established that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in cases where prima facie offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act are made out.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2026 This appeal is at the instance of the de facto complainant in Crime No.951/2025 of Pantheerankavu Police Station, challenging order dated 28.01.2026 in Crl.M.C.No.2067/2025 on the files of the Sessions Court (Principal Sessions Court), Kozhikode.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/de facto complainant, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5. Perused the order impugned, the case records in this crime and the records placed by the learned counsel for the appellant/de facto complainant. Also perused the connected Crime No.952/2025 of Pantheerankavu Police Station (initially Crime No.820/2025 of Kasaba Police Station), which led to passing of Annexure A4 order.

3. On facts, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 140(3), 115(2), 351(3) and 110 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS ’ hereinafter) as well as under Section 3 (2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the SC/ST (POA) Act’

hereinafter), by the respondents 2 to 5.

4. The prosecution case is that, due to previous animosity, the accused persons, who do not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, kidnapped the appellant in a car at 12.00 p.m. on 10.12.2025 and manhandled him knowing his caste identity.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant zealously pointed out that going through Annexure A5 order, whereby the learned Special Judge (Sessions Judge) granted anticipatory bail to respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein, there is no discussion regarding the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act. According to him, going by the prosecution records, supported by medical records, the allegation of commission of offences by respondent Nos.2 to 5 in this case are made out prima facie. In such a case, grant of anticipatory bail is specifically barred. The learned counsel placed decision of the Apex Court in Shakuntla Devi v. Baljinder Singh reported in [2013 KHC 4335] with reference to paragraph No.4 wherein it has been stated as under:

“4. We find that Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1984 provides that nothing in Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act. This Court has also held in Vilas Pandurang Pawar & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2012 (8) SCALE, 577 that of the Act creates a specific bar to the grant of anticipatory bail to a person against whom any offence is registered under the provisions of the aforesaid Act and, therefore no Court shall entertain an application for anticipatory bail unless it, prima facie, finds that an offence under the Act is not made out.”

6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, since in the facts of the case, bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act would apply and grant of anticipatory bail is totally impermissible, the order would therefore require interference.

7. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 specifically pointed out that in the counter case, Crime No.952/2025 of Pantheerankavu Police Station, registered against the appellant herein/de facto complainant, the allegation is that he had committed offences under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS , as well as under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, “the IT Act” hereinafter). Ac